November 9, 1965 

Hon. R. Wplght Armstrong Oplnlon No. C340 

Chairman, Board of Directors 

Texas ~Technologlcal Colleges. Re: Whether, under the facts 

5803 El Camp0 'Terrace aubmltted, a student is 

Fort Worth, Texas 76107 properly classified as 

'resident" ur "non+=esldent" for tuition purposes 

under Article 265&b, overDear Mr. Armstrong: non% Civil Statutes. 

You 'have requested the opinion of this office on the 

above ~questlon. In this connection, you have furnished ua 

with the following facts: 

"Ilse student in question Is a school teacher, 

having tau t school In the State of ~Texas 

for 'SIX (6 T years. Last ~year, she went to 

Qermany to teach in a service school and for 

the purpose of touring Germany, all as part 

of her further educationas a teacher. She 

'was out of the State of Texas on this temporary tour ten (10) months. She returned 

to Lame,sa, Texas, on July 2, 1965. She 

registered at Texas Technological College 

on September 14, 1965, and was ruled to be 

a non-resident for the purpose of paying 

tuition rates as provided in Article !2654c, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

The student has lived In Texas during her 

entire life and for the past 28 years has 

been a resident of Dawson County, Texas. 

She is a qualified voter of Dawson County, 

Texas, and voted in thatcounty last year 

as an absentee voter. 

The following pertinent portions ol Article 26540, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes.are quoted: 

-2583- 
Hon. R. Wright Armstrong, page 2 (C- 540) 

5 

“Section l(e) . The term ‘residence’ as 

used In this Act means ‘domicile’; the term 

‘resided In’ means ‘domiciled In’; provided, 

the Qoverning Board of each institution required under this Act to charge a nonresident 

registration fee Is hereby authorized and 

directed to follow such rules, regulations 

and interpretations as are issued by the 

Commission on Higher Education for the effective and uniform administration of the non-~,,.. 

resident tuition ‘provisions of this Act. .. 

Any such. rules, regulations,. and Interpreta-’ 

tlons’as may be issued by said Commlss.lon 

shall .also, be, furnished to the presidents or ,:. ” 

executive .heada of public junior colleges In 

this state. ,For the purposes of this Act, 

the status of a student as a ‘resident’ or 

‘non-resident 1 student, is to be determined ,, ,. 

as follows: 

.(I) A nonresident student $8 hereby defined to be a student of less than twenty-one I 

Lg!Z,) ;;arse~sa~;. . .; or a student of twentyY age or over who resldes out 

of,the state or who has not been a resident of 

the state ,twelve (,12) months immediately .precedlx 

the .date of ~reglstratlon. *’ (Emphasis ,supplled) 

The Texas Commission on Higher Education has issued 

Its rules snd regulations lnterpretlng.the, non,-resident tuition 

provisions of the:‘above-quoted statute. These rules do not, 

however, provide any real assistance in tha’determinatlon of the 

question before ,us.. We must, therefore, ~turn to other sources 

for our solution. 

The term “domicile” may have, a variety of slgnlflcatlons, 

dependent on its various applications. “What has been said to 

be the most comprehensive and correct definition which could be 

given ie that, in a strict legal sense, the domicile of a person 

la the place where he has his true, fixed, permanent home and 

principal establishment, and to,,whlch, whenever he is absent, he 

has the intention of returning. 28 C.J.S.~ 3 DOMICILE, 8 1. 

Also, “temporary residence, even. if long, merely for the purpose 

of transacting business or of engaging In employment, or for the 

sake of health or pleasure, with the Intention of returning to 

the original home, is not sufficient for the acquisition or 

28 C.J.S. 19, S 11,. See also Peaoock vs. 

%%%a~~ %:‘%‘68, 194 S.W.2d 551 (1946), wherein it is 

-2584- 
Hon. Ft. Wright Armstrong, page 3 (C- 540) 

stated, at page 555, "A domicile which has once attached is 

retained until a new domicile 1s attained.* i. . .Before a 

change of domicile of an adult can be effected there must 

exist both the fact of personal presence Inkhe new place and 

the intention to make that new place a~home. 

We turn now to the problem of applylng,the statutes 

and legal Interpretations to the facts of the caseat hand. 

The student here Involved is a native Texan, and under the 

facts given, her domicile has been in pawson~ County,,Texas, 

all her life. Her absence from this State, ~apparently from 

September, 1964 to July, 1965, was pursuant to a teaching 

contract with an armed forces sohool in Germany, and for the 

purpose of touring Germany, all as part of her further eduoatlon as a teacher. Luring her absence from Texas she paid 

her poll tax and, voted absentee In Dawson County, Texas. Upon 

the expiration of her teaching contract and tour of Germany, 

she returned to Lawson County. It 1s the opinion of this 

office that the foregoing facts constitute no basis for divesting the student of her established domicile in Texas. 

On the basls of the facts submitted by you, it 

1s the opfnlon oft this office that the student in question 

talned her BomlciIe l,n Texas and Is entitled to be charged 

resident tultlon~ rates under Art,lcle 2654~~ Vernon's Civil 

Statutes. 

reSGM'MARY 

When a resident of Texas leaves the State under 

an armed forces teaching contract, and stays in Germany for the contract period, with the Intention of 

returning to his domicile In Texas, and returns to 

Texas upon the expiration of his contract, he has 

not relinquished his domicile in Texas. Such a 

oereon. under these facts. Is a resident of Texas 

for purposes of college tuition under Article 

26540, V.C.S. 

Very truly yours, 

WAGGONER CAHH 

Attorney General 

Assistant 

MLQ:ms:mkh 

-2k85- 
Hon. R. Wright Armstrong, page 4 (C-540) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Marietta., Payne 

Wade Anderson 

John Reeves 

Terry Goodman 

APPROVEDFOR THE ATTORrJEy GENERAL 

BY: T. B. Wright 

-2586-